During last year's election campaign, Barack Obama's supporters stressed his promise as a leader who could restore US standing in the world. Even at home, despite the worsening economy, many of Mr Obama's fans deemed this his most important virtue. The rest of the world agreed. Understanding that nothing happens unless America takes charge, few other governments were opposed to a renewal of US leadership. On the contrary, most longed for it.
As the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations' summit in London approaches, how is that going? About as well as could be expected.
Mr Obama's campaign always exaggerated the difference he would make on foreign policy. His style could hardly be more different from the caricature of US supremacism projected by George W. Bush, but the underlying issues were unlikely to be any easier to deal with. So it has proved. In many areas of foreign and security policy, in contrast to the clear break he is attempting in domestic policy, Mr Obama is mostly rebranding Mr Bush's approach.
On Iraq, things are moving much as they would have done if Mr Bush were still in office. Likewise in Afghanistan, where the administration is proposing a surge not unlike the one in Iraq - overseen by the same general, under the political supervision of the same defence secretary - which Mr Obama found so unimpressive last year.
On Iran, Mr Obama has for the moment adjusted the rhetoric, but not the underlying condescension, the key demands, or the implicit "do as we say or else". "War on terror" terminology is used less often and less eagerly than it was by the Bush administration. This has not stopped the US attacking targets in Pakistan, a legally dubious enterprise to put it mildly, and one that looks a lot like waging war on terror. Lately the administration has even wanted North Korea's leaders to believe that the US might shoot down the rocket they are preparing to launch. How George W. Bush can you get?
What about Guantánamo, which many Americans see as a scar on the country's conscience and reputation? Mr Obama has reaffirmed his campaign promise to close the prison, and plans are afoot to do this. But the administration is in no hurry to release the people it no longer calls "enemy combatants". In a recent television interview, the president criticised some of the releases carried out by the Bush administration, mentioning that people let go have rejoined terrorist groups. To the dismay of civil-rights lawyers, the government's legal posture towards prisoners trying to challenge their detention in court is in most ways indistinguishable from that of the previous administration.
This strategy of mostly persisting with the foreign and security policies of Mr Bush while insisting that those policies have been overthrown has not yet met organised resistance from US allies. The fact that Mr Obama is so much better liked buys him a great deal of goodwill, and the desire to suck up to him still predominates.
Nonetheless, as the new president continues to seek material support for his fundamentally Bush-like security policies - more European troops in Afghanistan, a united front in dealing with Iran and other troublemakers, overseas dispersal of the G-Bay detainees - he is often going to come up empty-handed, leading to disillusionment on both sides. Friction with the allies is likely to increase.
Read the rest here.
I'm afraid Mr Crook continues to propagate the fiction that Obama's foreign policies are Bush like. They are Bush like to the extent his economic policies are Bush like. He inherited a mass of intractable problems largely but not entirely created by the previous administration. I liken them to ticking time bombs that have to be dismantled with care. Obviously for national and domestic political reasons Obama is going to protect US interests as part of this process but all of this hardly signifies he's pursuing Bush like policies. What would Mr Crook like him to have done? Quit Afghanistan and Iraq immediately? Close Gitmo and just send all the prisoners home? Mr Crook needs to realize the criteria is not looking like the un Bush, it's behaving pragmatially to work out these problems. I wonder sometimes whether Crook longs for the outstanding governance of the Bush era because all he ever gives us is a relentless catalogue of negativity for an administration facing bigger problems than I can remember in my lifetime and has been in office for about 90 days.
Let's see. Obama has been president for a little over two months. Why doesn't somebody give these ADD correspondents something worthwhile to do.
What people dont like about American foreign policy is our "world police" attitude.
What Europeans like to overlook is that the U.S. is stuck with this role until Europe steps in more convincingly.
This wont change no matter who is leading the U.S. gov't.
Can you really not see the fundamental differences between the two men, their policies and their administrations? And do you really think the Europeans can't see a difference between, for example, the guy who thinks torture is useful and legal, and the guy who thinks its abhorrent and illegal?
Just what is it that you think the Europeans thought was going to happen? An immediate and unilateral U.S. pullout from the Middle East? Instant normalization of relations with Iran and North Korea? Or what?
And of course "(f)riction with the allies is likely to increase." That's only natural, for any relationship. The beginning is all sweetness and light, and then when you get down to the nitty gritty, differences appear. "Honeymoon period" and all that. No surprise there.
I note a distinct lack of any comments in this column from European policymakers supporting your argument. Just the hollow line, "A poll of world leaders would likely echo the sentiment."
You are usually so much better than this weak effort.
Great piece, Clive. I think we're lucky that Obama has done so well at the G20 as he has. Very prescient.
I've got a new column on a similar topic you might find interesting. It's all about how the insular, command-and-control leadership of the collapsing automakers, bank CEOs and Bush/Cheney, is giving way to empathy as demonstrated by Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dev-petnaik-and-peter-mortensen/leadership-in-the-age-of_b_182548.html